This is the user sandbox of ACLSlibrary. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here. Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

"Arthur Conan Doyle." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Sep. 2013. Web. 27 Sep. 2013.

“Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan.” Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia. 1st ed. 1986. Print.

I selected this article as I very much enjoy Sherlock Holmes. I also like mystery novels and television show. Sir Conan Doyle and his works are often referenced in the mystery stories. As such, I would like to learn more about him, his works, and his influences.

To find these articles on him, I searched 'Conan Doyle' in the Wikipedia search bar, and looked up 'Doyle' in the Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia.

"Jack Harkness." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 27 Sep. 2013. Web. 27 Sep. 2013.

“Harkness, Captain Jack.” Torchwood: The Encyclopedia. 1st ed. 2009. Print.

I selected this article as Captain Jack Harkness is very absolute favourite fictional character. He is also from my favourite television show, Torchwood. As such, I'm always interested in learning more about his character history and extra character trivia.

To find these articles on him, I looked up 'Harkness' in Torchwood: The Encyclopedia. In the case of Wikipedia, I searched 'Captain Jack Harkness' in the Wikipedia search bar. I was directed to the Torchwood episode of the same name, and clicked a link on the article page which brought me to the character page.

"Martha Jones." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 20 Aug. 2013. Web. 27 Sep. 2013.

“Jones, Martha.” Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia. 1st ed. 2011. Print.

I decided to research Martha Jones as I quite enjoy the BBC show Doctor Who. She is my favourite regular cast character and companion from the series. Thus, learning extra information about the character I might not know is very interesting to me.

To find these articles on her, I searched 'Martha Jones' in the Wikipedia search bar, and looked up 'Jones' in 'Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia'.

"Wales." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Sep. 2013. Web. 27 Sep. 2013.

“Wales.” Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia. 1st ed. 1986. Print.

I've always been very interested in the United Kingdoms, but after watching BBC's Torchwood I learned a bit about Wales. As such, I became very interested in it and decided to research it. Although it is equally a part of the United Kingdoms, I find Wales is discussed or presented in television nearly as often as England. I find the history of Wales and the Welsh language extremely interesting.

To find these articles, I searched 'Wales in both the Wikipedia search bar and in the Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia.

"King Arthur." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 27 Aug. 2013. Web. 27 Sep. 2013.

“Arthur.” Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia. 1st ed. 1986. Print.

I chose to research King Arthur as I've always been interested in Arthurian legend. I never knew very much about it, unfortunately, but in my last year of university I took a Medieval literature class focused on King Arthur. We discussed the history of the UK, and I learned how the Welsh people originally inhabited the area that is known today as England. Due to this, there is still today debate as to if Arthur was King from the English or the Welsh people and, if the legend of his return is true, for whom he shall come to defend. As I find all this fascinating, I am always looking to continue learning and expanding my knowledge of King Arthur.

To find these articles on him, I searched 'King Arthur' in the Wikipedia search bar, and looked up 'Arthur' in the Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia.

I found that using Wikipedia made finding articles and information much easier and faster. One simply needs to type what they are looking for into the search bar and they are instantly directed to either the exact page or a list of entries which match the inquiry. In my research process, I did have one instance where after entering a search and was directly taken to an article matching my enquiry that was not what I was searching for. This was a bit confusing for a moment, but I was quickly able to redirect myself by clicking a fast link in the article itself which brought me to what I was originally looking for. On this note, Wikipedia makes searching related material very easy. When reading an article, often links are given throughout the page which direct the reader to other articles which explain related information. For example, when reading about Wales, I could have easily switched to read about Welsh with very minimal effort on my part.

This all said, Wikipedia is not without its downside, and a very big one at that. Though most pages hold a plethora of information, there is much question as to its accuracy. As anyone can edit articles, one cannot know for sure whether the editor truly knows about what they are writing. It is hard to know how much fact checking occurred before information was entered. Also, as the information can be edited at anytime, pages constantly changed. Thus, information that was there once might not be there next time the page is accessed for reference. Still, the Wikipedia articles often offer a list of reference material at the bottom of the page which can be used to help check and verify the legitimacy of the provided information.

In the case of the hardcopy encyclopaedias, there was generally less information provided. As there is a limited amount of space which can be used for each article, they are very concise entries. This has its positives and negatives. Unlike Wikipedia, there isn't as much information made available. At the same time, though, it is edited so that the most important information to best explain the subject is concisely offered, making it very clear to understand. From this, the reader is prepared to due more extensive research on the subject mater which a good understanding of the basics of the topic.

Positively, there is little question when using these published encyclopedias as to the veracity of the material. As much professional editing and fact checking occurs before publication and print, the reader knows that the information provided has been well researched. This makes them excellent resources as reference material. That said, unlike Wikipedia, printed books cannot be update without republication. The information provided is only as accurate as to the date it was published. In some cases, this is not at all a problem, however, as historical facts or scientific information does not change. Yet, information of later discoveries which added important insight to these subject are not included in a book published before such an event occurred. Also, earlier editions would lack any information on subjects that only came into existence after their publication. As such, one must be very careful to check the date an encyclopedia was published before using it as research as they may discover a lack of information for the subject in which they seek.

I personally feel external encyclopaedias are preferable to use over Wikipedia. While there is a lot of information on Wikipedia, and often entries that cannot readily be found in books with limited space, the accuracy of the material is always in question. The page can change at any time, and there is no way of knowing how much fact checking occurred before the information was entered or altered. This said, I would not rule out using Wikipedia all together. It is a good beginning stepping stone for research. While not really viable as a final reference source, it can give someone beginning to research a topic a quick overview on some of the ideas and areas in which they should look to review elsewhere. Also, Wikipedia provides a number of beginning reference sites for the researcher to look at in the initial stages of their search. As such, while I see external encyclopaedias as the better resource to reference in papers and projects, I see Wikipedia as a good resource to give someone beginning to learn about something a better sense of what direction they should take in their research.

The Wikipedia article on Martha Jones first provides a brief overview of the character, explaining that she is a fictional character from the BBC television show Doctor Who played by Freema Agyeman. It explains that she appeared first in season 3, after Rose Tyler was written out of the series, but only remained in the regular cast for a single season. It gives a very simple definition of her character, indicating she was a medical student who became a companion to The Doctor until she left due to unrequited love and became a member of a special military group called UNIT.

The main part of the article is divided into three sections: appearances, characterisation and analyses. Appearances is divided into three subsections: television, literature and audio drama. Both Literature and audio drama simply list the various books and audio plays in which Martha makes appearances. Television, however, gives a more detailed account of the characters appearances on both Doctor Who and the show’s spinoff series Torchwood. It accounts for not only her appearances as a series regular on Doctor Who – as well as her guest role on Torchwood – but also her special episode reappearances on Doctor Who. In each of these incidents, it gives an explanation of her role in the episode storyline.

Characterisation is divided into conception and development. Conception overviews the original design ideas for her character and how it was changed in order to better fit with the show. Development outlines how Martha’s character changed after leaving Doctor Who as a regular character, as revealed during her time on Torchwood and her guest appearances on the original show. The analyses section of the article explains numerous ways in which Martha’s character has been critically debated. It gives a basic overview of how her character is analysed, focusing on race and class. It then divides into two more focused categories of racial issues and female role model. Under Racial issues, it discusses the popular positive and negative ways in which viewers commonly perceive her characterisation and representation as a black woman on the show. Female role model takes a similar approach, discussing how her character reflects positive feminist views, reflecting an intelligent and central character whom plays an important role in the show’s storylines.

The article closes with a list of forty-three references that they cited throughout the article as proof of the validity of the information provided. Nearly all the references provided are either from the BBC website itself or from some publication endorsed by it, such as the official Doctor Who magazine. This demonstrates that the information in the article can be assumed as fairly reliable.

By reviewing the article history, one can see that while many people have likely viewed the article, it has not been edited since early October. Looking closer at the recorded changes, one can see that many of the changes that have occurred in the articles recent history have been undone. One of the removals cites their reasoning as that information should not be added without an authoritative source being provided. The most recent article changes were done by an editor named 'Zythe', whom undid incorrect edits to the article. Reviewing their records, they have achieved status as a senior editor and been given several awards as recognition for their good work editing articles, especially those focusing on television shows such as Doctor Who and its spinoff Torchwood. Especially as this editor was the last to review the article, this indicates that the information provided in the article can be viewed as fairly reliable.

The article in Doctor Who: The Encyclopedia on Martha Jones spans two and a half pages of the book, one of which is a full page picture of the character. It begins by giving an overview of her all her family relations and explaining that she was a medical student at the beginning of her appearances in the series. The article then gives an overview of her role in each episode of Doctor Who in which she appeared, chronically, spanning from the first episode of season three and including her special episode guest appearances from season four. With many of the earlier episodes, there are only one or two lines of information which explain concisely Martha’s role in the story. For the multiple episode finale of season three, however, the article provides a couple of paragraphs which go into more detail about the events, as her role was even more central to the movement of the plot. In addition, her special reappearances during season four are also more fully explained, spanning a little more than half a page of the article. The article even briefly mentions an appearance of the character in season six, although it was simply a still holographic image. The article concludes by listing that the Martha was portrayed by Freema Agyeman.

The article includes several bracketed numbers, such as ‘(3.6)’, which indicate which episode the provided description is referencing. The episode titles themselves are not mentioned within the article, but there is a ‘Key to References’ guide given at the back of the book which matches the numbers to episode titles. The encyclopedia also includes articles on all characters and keywords mentioned in the Martha Jones article, allowing the reader to easily discover further information on anything mentioned. The encyclopedia does not include any further citations or bibliographic material. This said, as the book is an official BBC reviewed an endorsed publication – the company that produces the television show – the reader can be assured that all information has been verified and is accurate.

Before reviewing the two articles it might seem simple to view one article as superior than another, especially in terms of which is more authoritative. After comparing the two in detail, such a decision is far more difficult. The Wikipedia article is far longer than that of the print encyclopedia, an provides information that is not included in the latter. Both give descriptions of Martha Jones’ involvement in each episode in which she appears. The Wikipedia article, however, gives far more additional information, including the original character concept and an overview of the critical debate the character has received.

As Wikipedia is an electronic source, it is not under any limits of size for space, unlike the printed encyclopedia. This is likely part of the reason the Doctor Who encyclopedia provides less information than the Wikipedia one does. That said, in terms of the information which they both have – the description of Martha’s involvement each episode – the amount of information provided is about the same. In fact, while there are only a few lines given at some points, the print encyclopedia actually gives a much more extensive description of Martha’s role in the story.

None the less, the article is limited by its size and subject matter focus. As the encyclopedia is focused on the television show of Doctor Who, it lacks any information of Martha’s appearances in other things, including the books and audio plays which are listed on the Wikipedia article, but also her appearance in the show’s spin off series Torchwood, in which she played a very central role. The Wikipedia article details her appearance on the show, while the printed encyclopedia gives no mention at all of such an occurrence. The print encyclopedia is also limited by the fact it is designed to give a concise explanation of character information as it relates to the events of the Doctor Who show. As such, it provides no background on how the character was designed or developed for the show or gives any information about Martha outside what could be learned by having watched the episodes in which she appears.

The Wikipedia article, in contrast, has collected information from the BBC website and Doctor Who magazine articles which give further information. For example, the Wikipedia article discusses information found in an interview with the shows head writer at the time, Russell T. Davies, who created the character of Martha. It provides readers with information he gave on his original conception and plan for the character of Martha, as well as future plans which had to be changed due to scheduling conflicts and changes. Also, while the print encyclopedia includes articles on all the characters and keywords mentioned within the Martha Jones article for readers to look up if desired, those articles face the same limits of size and concise information that the former does. Wikipedia, in contrast, provides links to articles with more encompassing information, like that found in its Martha Jones article. It does not have as many articles available as the print encyclopedia, however, as Wikipedia tends to focus on character information and many of the key words mentioned cannot be found.

In all, both articles seem to be very good sources of information. Anyone looking to read about Martha would do well to read either, or even both for a full benefit. Looking at specific needs, though, the Wikipedia article is better suited to people who already know the basics of the character and are looking to learn further details which they could not discover from watching the show itself, such as character conception and critical reception. The print encyclopedia would be better for those less familiar with the Martha’s character, or someone looking for a more detailed account of specific episode information. Both are articles are shown to be reliable sources. The Wikipedia article seeming to have been well edited and cited and the print encyclopedia is an official BBC endorsed publishing. As for providing aid to find further resources and outside reading, however, the Wikipedia article is clearly superior. While both have means to allow curious readers to learn further on information given within the articles, the Wikipedia one also provides an extensive list of links to authoritative articles on the subject. Again, both articles are good comprehensive guides, but the Wikipedia is better suited to providing its reader with a means to continue to learn more information, if they so desire.

“2.6: Reset.” Torchwood : The Official Magazine Yearbook. 1st ed. 2008. Print.

“Doctor Who and The Reusable Actors: Parts 1-10.” Fraser McAlpine. BBC America, 21 Oct. 2011. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.

“Doctor Who: Re-evaluating Martha Jones.” Peter Sharles. Cultbox, 5 Jun, 2012. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.

“Doctor Who Rogues Gallery: The Judoon.” Fraser McAlpine. BBC America, 21 Oct. 2011. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.

“Doctor Who: Smith & Jones.” Russell T. Davies. n.p., n.d. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.

“A Companion to The Doctor’s Companions: Martha Jones.” Fraser McAlpine. BBC America, 21 Oct. 2011. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.

“Jones, Martha.” Torchwood: The Encyclopedia. 1st ed. 2009. Print.

“Life Outside the TARDIS: Freema Agyeman.” Fraser McAlpine. BBC America, 21 Oct. 2011. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.

“Martha Jones.” Doctor Who: The Visual Dictionary. 1st ed. 2010. Print.

“Martha Jones.” Tardis wikia. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.

“Martha Jones: Capable Companion.” Doctor Who: Character Encyclopedia. 1st ed. 2013. Print.

“Martha Jones says no to Who’s 50th (but should we believe her?).” Dan Roth. Blastr, 4 Mar. 2013. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.

“Name: Martha Jones” The Torchwood Archives 1st ed. 2008. Print.

“Russell T. Davies Created a Secret Origin for the 12th Doctor.” Stubby the Rocket. Tor.com, 1 Oct. 2013. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.